D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Idea

[Pour]

How about hard-wiring into the combat system that wielding two weapons allows for more damage, sure, but leaves you at a distinct disadvantage for no longer having the use of both hands. You can't grab anyone, catch anything, find purchase when falling, operate wands or devices, retrieve and uncork potions, etc. You'd have to sheathe or drop your weapon first. I suppose in order for that to matter in a fight, I want that to be more than a free action, OR help DMs create dynamic combats (on horseback, swinging on vines, fighting amidst tidal surges or in the middle of bat swarms) where maybe a free hand might alleviate some sort of disadvantage, or provide an advantage.

I think this really touches on a much larger issue with combat, making it so everyone is challenged, not by specifically playing to weaknesses or instilling penalties, but by forcing players to find and utilize their strengths and advantages in any given scenario through imagination, cleverness, a useful character sheet, and relatively simple rules. Arrows, jets of fire or acid, and I think TWF would want to remain toward the back behind the sword-and-shield guy, or behind the spear guy as enemies funnel down the hall, but when surrounded, he's your man, or confronted with any number of onrushing tentacles or dropping webs.

I guess there just has to be a way to provide real advantages, little to no penalties, and allow for the balance to come from dynamic play.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I would still much rather avoid extra attacks wherever possible.

So (posted in the other thread, too) ... why not just have TWF grant advantage? Choose either weapon to roll damage as normal.

Simple, doesn't absolutely overshadow S&B or 2H, does do more damage over time than just a single weapon, and allows some flexibility in type of weapon and damage. You can pair any two one-handed weapons this way. It does give up the ability to attack two targets individually, though.

 

[MoonSong]

So (posted in the other thread, too) ... why not just have TWF grant advantage? Choose either weapon to roll damage as normal.

Simple, doesn't absolutely overshadow S&B or 2H, does do more damage over time than just a single weapon, and allows some flexibility in type of weapon and damage. You can pair any two one-handed weapons this way. It does give up the ability to attack two targets individually, though.

That doesn't feel right. The only way to feel like you are using two weapons is by using two attacks. Otherwise it feels like a weird and arbitrary number crunching. Also your suggestion doesn't allow to attack two targets.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That doesn't feel right. The only way to feel like you are using two weapons is by using two attacks. Otherwise it feels like a weird and arbitrary number crunching. Also your suggestion doesn't allow to attack two targets.

Yes, you give up attacking two targets. But you're still getting two attacks -- they just roll together and you only roll once for damage.

 

[Evenglare]

I just wanted to throw out, it's extremely disheartening that the majority of people think that 2 weapons are balanced against a 2h weapon by damage alone.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think using advantage is limited, it means you can't get advantage like other people, if you see what I mean.

I'm still favouring a single attack, with +1 to hit, or a flexible choice between +1 AC or +2 damage (which is what the other styles offer).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think using advantage is limited, it means you can't get advantage like other people, if you see what I mean.

But you don't need it, because you're getting it all the time. That might in fact be too good!

I'm still favouring a single attack, with +1 to hit, or a flexible choice between +1 AC or +2 damage (which is what the other styles offer).

Mechanically, I think you're right. It's lacking a bit in flavor, though, and doesn't allow some flexibility in damage type (like sword + mace).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I just wanted to throw out, it's extremely disheartening that the majority of people think that 2 weapons are balanced against a 2h weapon by damage alone.

I think the problem is we can't settle on a common definition of what we want from TWF. The other approaches are pretty simple to define:

Single weapon alone: +A "to hit", [W] weapon damage. Base case.

Sword & Board: gets +A and [W] for a one-handed weapon, with +D to defense. So this doesn't sacrifice offense, but improves defense.

Two Handed: gets +A and [W]+w damage. Adds per-hit damage capability in exchange for not being able to increase defense.

Two Weapon Fighting: is it -

a. Two attacks, for
a1. A chance for more damage
a2. An increased chance of hitting
a3. Ability to attack more than one target
a4. Ability to apply "special" damage or effects more than once
b. Two types of weapons for mixed damage types or abilities
c. Improved defense, under certain conditions
d. Several of the above
e. All of the above

(e) is very hard to achieve and make it a reasonably balanced alternative to the other approaches.

 

[MoonSong]

Yes, you give up attacking two targets. But you're still getting two attacks -- they just roll together and you only roll once for damage.

That is not two attacks, that is rolling the same attack twice, simple but very boring. The whole point of dual wielding is the flexibility of attacking two enemies, one enemy twice or alternate between two weapons (and likely the ability to parry with the off-hand weapon, but that has barely been supported) not just getting arbitrary and fiddly bonuses.

Yet another proposal. You can attack with each weapon once and roll damage normally, but you give up your reaction this turn if that happens and only apply expertise bonuses to one attack. does it look too powerfull?

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am okay with 2WF being available to everyone, BUT I cannot see anyone trying this under the current rule set. It is not worth it.

More importantly, I can't see any way for specialists to be GOOD at it. Now all those PCs developed as 2WF are pathetic at hitting.

Even though everyone can now attampt 2WF, why was there still not a Specialty to make it s good option for someone to specialise in it? (Such as, removal of Disadvantage at least? We might go with this simple adjustment for the Dual-Weapon specialist from last packet). I can't believe they just removed the Specialty b/c they made the basic move available to anyone.

Any what was witht the Light weapon req, when there is NO mention of them in the rules (as far as I can see anyway)?